R v Casemore - [2023] QSCPR 21

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Casemore [2023] QSCPR 21

PARTIES:

R

(Respondent)
v

CASEMORE, Neale Graham

(Applicant Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC 81 of 2023

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

6 December 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

5 December 2023

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDER:

1. Application granted.

2. The evidence of what was found during the roadside search of the vehicle driven by the applicant on 4 June 2022 is excluded from evidence on his trial on the indictment charging him with possession of methylamphetamine with circumstance of aggravation on that date at that place.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – WARRENTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS – SEARCH WARRENTS – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – where police pulled over the applicant because of a licence check – where the applicant’s vehicle was searched without a warrant – where police relied on the power in s 31(1) of the Police Powers and Responsibility Act 2000 – where police found 70 grams of a dangerous drug, cash and utensils in the applicant’s possession – where the applicant submits that the search was unlawfully conducted – where police did not have reasonable grounds for their suspicion of dangerous drugs – whether it is in the public interest to exclude evidence from the applicant’s trial

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) sch 6, ss 31(1), 31(1)(c), 60

George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104, cited.

R v Aloia [2022] QSCPR 1 [29-30], cited.

Bunning v Cross [1978] 141 CLR 54, 74, cited.

Ridgeway v The Queen [1995] 184 CLR 19, 31, cited.

COUNSEL:
C Peters for the respondent prosecution

R Logan for the applicant defendant

SOLICITORS:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent prosecution

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant defendant

In a roadside search of a vehicle of which the applicant was the sole occupant driver, police found about 70 grams gross of methylamphetamine, some scales, $2,360 cash and a pipe. He has been charged on indictment with the aggravated possession of the methylamphetamine. He alleges the search was unlawful and seeks a pre-trial ruling excluding the evidence obtained by it.
It is not contended the initial stopping of the vehicle, purportedly for a licence check, was unlawful. At 1 am on Saturday, the 4^th of June 2022, two police, Sergeant M.R. and Senior Constable A.G. were in an unmarked police vehicle driving by a house in suburban Edmonton. A utility was parked in the driveway. The driver in the vehicle was speaking to someone standing beside the car. The house was known to Senior Constable A.G.
He assisted a police search there on 14 June 2017, when some methylamphetamine and drug utensils were found. On 24 May 2020, he intercepted a vehicle leaving there and found methylamphetamine, utensils and cash in the ensuing search of the car that had left, a find which led, in turn, to the issue of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Casemore

Details

AGLC: R v Casemore [2023] QSCPR 21
Case: [2023] QSCPR 21
Decision Date: 6 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Casemore involved the applicant, who was pulled over by police for a licence check. During the stop, the police conducted a search of the applicant's vehicle without a warrant, relying on the power provided by section 31(1) of the Police Powers and Responsibility Act 2000. As a result of the search, the police discovered 70 grams of a dangerous drug, cash, and utensils in the applicant's possession. The applicant contested the legality of the search and argued that the police did not have reasonable grounds for suspecting the presence of dangerous drugs. The court was required to determine whether the search was conducted lawfully and whether it was in the public interest to exclude the evidence obtained from the search during the applicant's trial.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the police had reasonable grounds to conduct the search without a warrant. The court examined the power under section 31(1) of the Police Powers and Responsibility Act 2000 and the requirements for reasonable suspicion. The court also considered whether the search was conducted in the public interest and whether the exclusion of the evidence would serve the interests of justice. In making its decision, the court balanced the need for law enforcement to effectively combat drug-related crimes with the protection of individual rights and the integrity of the criminal justice system.

The court found that the police did not have reasonable grounds to conduct the search without a warrant. The court noted that the licence check was not a sufficient basis for reasonable suspicion, and the other factors cited by the police were not sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for the search. The court also concluded that it was in the public interest to exclude the evidence obtained from the search during the applicant's trial. The court determined that the unlawful search had violated the applicant's rights and that admitting the evidence would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. Based on these findings, the court granted the applicant's application and excluded the evidence obtained from the search.

In summary, the court granted the application and excluded the evidence obtained from the unlawful roadside search of the applicant's vehicle. The court found that the police did not have reasonable grounds to conduct the search without a warrant and that excluding the evidence was in the public interest. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that law enforcement conducts searches in accordance with the law and respecting individual rights.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application granted.

2. The evidence of what was found during the roadside search of the vehicle driven by the applicant on 4 June 2022 is excluded from evidence on his trial on the indictment charging him with possession of methylamphetamine with circumstance of aggravation on that date at that place.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Casemore [2023] QSCPR 21
PARTIES:	R (Respondent) v CASEMORE, Neale Graham (Applicant Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC 81 of 2023
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	6 December 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	5 December 2023
JUDGE:	Henry J
ORDER:	1. Application granted. 2. The evidence of what was found during the roadside search of the vehicle driven by the applicant on 4 June 2022 is excluded from evidence on his trial on the indictment charging him with possession of methylamphetamine with circumstance of aggravation on that date at that place.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – WARRENTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS – SEARCH WARRENTS – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – where police pulled over the applicant because of a licence check – where the applicant’s vehicle was searched without a warrant – where police relied on the power in s 31(1) of the Police Powers and Responsibility Act 2000 – where police found 70 grams of a dangerous drug, cash and utensils in the applicant’s possession – where the applicant submits that the search was unlawfully conducted – where police did not have reasonable grounds for their suspicion of dangerous drugs – whether it is in the public interest to exclude evidence from the applicant’s trial Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) sch 6, ss 31(1), 31(1)(c), 60 George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104, cited. R v Aloia [2022] QSCPR 1 [29-30], cited. Bunning v Cross [1978] 141 CLR 54, 74, cited. Ridgeway v The Queen [1995] 184 CLR 19, 31, cited.
COUNSEL:	C Peters for the respondent prosecution R Logan for the applicant defendant
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent prosecution Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant defendant